Patient Perspectives on Seeking Emergency Care for Acute Low Back Pain and Access to Physical Therapy in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Low back pain is a common reason for visiting the emergency department (ED), yet little is known about patient motivations for seeking emergency care. The purpose of this study was to explore patient perspectives on visiting the ED for low back pain to inform a more patient-centered approach to emergency care. METHODS: We conducted focus group discussions and individual interviews among patients visiting an urban academic ED for acute low back pain. We recruited participants from an ongoing prospective study of 101 patients receiving either ED-initiated physical therapy or usual care. We conducted discussions, and interviews using an a priori developed discussion guide. We audio recorded, transcribed, and iteratively content analyzed the data using a consensual qualitative approach until thematic saturation was reached. RESULTS: We conducted 4 focus group discussions among 18 participants (median age 46.5 years, 66.7% women, 61.1% Black) and individual interviews with 27 participants (median age 45 years, 55.6% women, 44.4% White). No new themes emerged during the fourth and final focus group. We identified 5 summary themes: (1) the decision to seek emergency care for low back pain is motivated by severe pain, resulting disability, and fears about a catastrophic diagnosis, (2) participants sought various goals from their ED visit but emphasized the primacy of pain control, (3) participants were reluctant to use pain medications but also acknowledged their benefit, (4) participants perceived a number of benefits from direct access to an ED physical therapist in the ED, and (5) participation in physical therapy ultimately facilitated recovery, but the pain was a barrier to performing exercises. CONCLUSIONS: These patient perspectives and resulting themes may be used to inform a more patient-centered emergency care experience and contextualize quantitative research findings on ED care for low back pain.

Impact of the COVID pandemic on emergency department CT utilization: where do we go from here?

PURPOSE: To analyze the impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID) pandemic on emergency department (ED) computed tomography (CT) utilization. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted assessing seven hospitals' ED imaging volumes between Jan. 6, 2019, and Feb. 27, 2021. Weekly CT utilization is reported as CTs ordered per 100 ED visits. Utilization was ascertained in aggregate and by body area. Interrupted time series analysis was performed to assess significance of utilization change. Prespecified sensitivity analysis was performed for influenza-like or COVID-like illness (ILI/CLI). RESULTS: Weekly ED CT utilization increased from 35.9 CTs per 100 visits (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 35.8-36.1) to 41.8 per 100 visits (95% CI 41.7-42.0) in pre- and post-pandemic periods. Weekly ED CT chest utilization increased immediately following the pandemic declaration (+ 0.52 chest CTs per 100 ED visits, 95% CI 0.01-1.03, p < 0.05) and compared to pre-pandemic period (+ 0.02 per 100 ED visits, 95% CI 0.02-0.05, p < 0.02). For both CT abdomen/pelvis and CT head, there was neither an immediate effect (+ 0.34 CT-AP per 100 ED visits, 95% CI - 0.74 to 1.44, p = 0.89; - 0.42 CT-H per 100 ED visits, 95% CI - 1.53 to 0.70, p = 0.46) nor a change in weekly CT utilization (+ 0.03 CT-AP per 100 ED visits, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.05, p = 0.09; + 0.03 CT-H per 100 ED visits, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.06, p = 0.10).  CONCLUSION: These data may help formulate future strategies for resource utilization and imaging operations as we envision a future with COVID and other federal mandates affecting imaging utilization and appropriateness.

Patient-Reported Opioid Pill Consumption After an ED Visit: How Many Pills Are People Using?

OBJECTIVES: Recent guidelines advise limiting opioid prescriptions for acute pain to a three-day supply; however, scant literature quantifies opioid use patterns after an emergency department (ED) visit. We sought to describe opioid consumption patterns after an ED visit for acute pain. DESIGN: Descriptive study with data derived from a larger interventional study promoting safe opioid use after ED discharge. SETTING: Urban academic emergency department (>88,000 annual visits). SUBJECTS: Patients were eligible if age >17 years, not chronically using opioids, and newly prescribed hydrocodone-acetaminophen and were included in the analysis if they returned the completed 10-day medication diary. METHODS: Patient demographics and opioid consumption are reported. Opioid use is described in daily number of pills and daily morphine milligram equivalents (MME) both for the sample overall and by diagnosis. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty patients returned completed medication diaries (45 [17%] back pain, 52 [20%] renal colic, 54 [21%] fracture/dislocation, 40 [15%] musculoskeletal injury [nonfracture], and 69 [27%] "other"). The mean age (SD) was 45 (15) years, and 59% of the sample was female. A median of 12 pills were prescribed. Patients with renal colic used the least opioids (total pills: median [interquartile range {IQR}] = 3 [1-7]; total MME: median [IQR] = 20 [10-50]); patients with back pain used the most (total pills: median [IQR] = 12 [7-16]; total MME: median [IQR] = 65 [47.5-100]); 92.5% of patients had leftover pills. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, pill consumption varied by illness category; however, overall, patients were consuming low quantities of pills, and the majority had unused pills 10 days after their ED visit.

Take-Home Naloxone Program Implementation: Lessons Learned From Seven Chicago-Area Hospitals.

Despite consensus recommendations from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the surgeon general to dispense naloxone to discharged ED patients at risk for opioid overdose, there remain numerous logistic, financial, and administrative barriers to implementing "take-home naloxone" programs at individual hospitals. This article describes the recent collective experience of 7 Chicago-area hospitals in implementing take-home naloxone programs. We highlight key barriers, such as hesitancy from hospital administrators, lack of familiarity with relevant rules and regulations in regard to medication dispensing, and inability to secure a supply of naloxone for dispensing. We also highlight common facilitators of success, such as early identification of a "C-suite" champion and the formation of a multidisciplinary team of program leaders. Finally, we provide recommendations that will assist emergency departments planning to implement their own take-home naloxone programs and will inform policymakers of specific needs that may facilitate dissemination of naloxone to the public.

Who Is Keeping Their Unused Opioids and Why?

OBJECTIVE: To better understand patients' reasoning for keeping unused opioid pills. METHODS: As part of a larger study, patients were asked their plans for their unused opioids. Responses were categorized as "dispose," "keep," and "don't know." Baseline characteristics were compared between the "keep" and "dispose" groups. Verbatim responses categorized as "keep" were analyzed qualitatively using a team-based inductive approach with constant comparison across cases. RESULTS: One hundred patients planned to dispose of their pills; 117 planned to keep them. There were no differences in demographics between the groups. Among patients who planned to keep their pills, the mean age was 43 years and 47% were male. Analysis revealed four categories of patient responses: 1) plans to keep their pills "just in case," with reference to a medical condition (e.g., kidney stone); 2) plans to keep pills "just in case" without reference to any medical condition; 3) plans to dispose in delayed fashion (e.g., after pill expiration) or unsure of how to dispose; and 4) no identified plans, yet intended to keep pills. In this sample, there were no differences in characteristics of those reporting planning to keep vs dispose of pills; however, there were diverse reasons for keeping opioids. CONCLUSIONS: This manuscript describes a sample of patients who kept their unused opioids and presents qualitative data detailing their personal reasoning for keeping the unused pills. Awareness of the range of motivations underpinning this behavior may inform the development of tailored education and risk communication messages to improve opioid disposal.

Development of a take-home naloxone program at an urban academic emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development of an ED-based take-home naloxone (THN) program in which naloxone kits are dispensed directly to patients during ED discharge. PRACTICE DESCRIPTION: Our THN program was carried out at an urban academic hospital in downtown Chicago, IL. The THN kits consisted of 3 vials of 0.4-mg naloxone and 3 sterile syringes and needles for intramuscular delivery. Any member of the ED team (e.g., physician, pharmacist, or nurse) could recommend naloxone dispensing for a patient; however only the treating ED physician served as the prescriber for record. The ED pharmacist provided bedside education on recognizing opioid overdose and administering naloxone. The naloxone kit was dispensed to the patient at no cost. PRACTICE INNOVATION: This ED pharmacist-led naloxone dispensing model bypasses barriers to naloxone filling and ensures that patients walk out of the emergency department with naloxone in hand. EVALUATION METHODS: We report key metrics from the first 16 months of program implementation, including the number of ED visits for opioid overdose and THN kits dispensed. We further describe the key facilitators and barriers to program development. RESULTS: Over 16 months, our emergency department had 669 unique visits for opioid overdose, and we dispensed 168 THN kits (10.5 per month). We are aware of at least 3 cases in which our THN kits were used to reverse opioid overdose. We faced key informational barriers to program development, such as a lack of knowledge regarding the allowability of ED medication dispensing, as well as financial barriers, such as the need to obtain a supply of naloxone. We also recognized the key facilitators of success, such as early engagement with hospital leadership. CONCLUSION: Implementing a successful THN program is possible in the ED setting, and individual hospital emergency departments seeking to build their own program may benefit from our report.

A comparison of analgesic prescribing among ED back and neck pain visits receiving physical therapy versus usual care.

OBJECTIVE: Physical therapy (PT) is commonly cited as a non-opioid pain strategy, and previous studies indicate PT reduces opioid utilization in outpatients with back pain. No study has yet examined whether PT is associated with lower analgesic prescribing in the ED setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of discharged ED visits with a primary ICD-10 diagnosis relating to back or neck pain from 10/1/15 to 2/21/17 at an urban academic ED. Visits receiving a PT evaluation were matched with same-date visits receiving usual care. We compared the primary outcomes of opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing between the two cohorts using chi-squared test and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 74 ED visits received PT during the study period; these visits were matched with 390 same-date visits receiving usual care. Opioid prescribing among ED-PT visits was not significantly higher compared to usual care visits on both unadjusted analysis (50% vs 42%, p = 0.19) and adjusted analysis (adjOR 1.05, 95% CI 0.48-2.28). However, benzodiazepine prescribing among ED-PT visits was significantly higher than usual care visits on both unadjusted (45% vs 23%, p < 0.001) and adjusted analysis (adjOR 3.65, 95% CI 1.50-8.83). CONCLUSIONS: In this single center study, ED back and neck pain visits receiving PT were no less likely to receive an opioid prescription and were more likely to receive a benzodiazepine than visits receiving usual care. Although prior studies demonstrate that PT may reduce opioid utilization in the subsequent year, these results indicate that analgesic prescribing is not reduced at the initial ED encounter.

Physical therapy in the emergency department: A new opportunity for collaborative care.

Emergency department-initiated physical therapy (ED PT) is an emerging resource in the United States, with the number of ED PT programs in the United States growing rapidly over the last decade. In this collaborative model of care, physical therapists are consulted by the treating ED physician to assist in the evaluation and treatment of a number of movement and functional disorders, such as low back pain, peripheral vertigo, and various gait disturbances. Patients receiving ED PT benefit from the physical therapist's expertise in musculoskeletal and vestibular conditions and from the individualized attention provided in a typical bedside evaluation and treatment session, which includes education on expected symptom trajectory, recommendations for activity modulation, and facilitated outpatient follow-up. Early data suggest that both physicians and patients view ED PT services favorably, and that ED PT is associated with improvement of several important clinical and operational outcomes. Hospital systems interested in building their own ED PT program may benefit from the key steps outlined in this review, as well as a summary of the typical clinical volumes and practice patterns encountered at existing programs around the country.

Benzodiazepine-opioid co-prescribing in a national probability sample of ED encounters.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepine-opioid combination therapy is potentially harmful due to the risk of synergistic respiratory depression, and the rate of death due to benzodiazepine-opioid overdose is increasing. Little is known about the prevalence and characteristics of benzodiazepine-opioid co-prescribing from the ED setting. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, using sample weights to generate population estimates. The primary objective was to describe the annual prevalence of benzodiazepine-opioid co-prescribing from 2006 to 2012, using 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) to compare adjacent years. The secondary objective was to compare characteristics of ED encounters receiving a benzodiazepine-opioid co-prescription versus those receiving an opioid prescription alone, using a multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The prevalence of benzodiazepine-opioid co-prescribing did not significantly change from 2006 to 2012. During this period, 2.7% (95% CI: 2.5-2.8%) of ED encounters prescribed an opioid were also prescribed a benzodiazepine. Relative to encounters receiving an opioid prescription alone, encounters receiving a co-prescription were more likely to represent a follow-up rather than initial visit (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.52), receive more medications (OR 1.41) and fewer procedures (OR 0.48) while in the ED, and more likely to have a diagnosis related to mental disorder (OR 20.60) or musculoskeletal problem (OR 3.71). CONCLUSIONS: From 2006 to 2012, almost 3% of all ED encounters receiving an opioid prescription also received a benzodiazepine co-prescription. The odds of benzodiazepine-opioid co-prescribing were significantly higher in ED encounters representing a follow-up visit and in diagnoses relating to a mental disorder or musculoskeletal problem.

CYP2C19 drug-drug and drug-gene interactions in ED patients.

BACKGROUND: CYP450 polymorphisms result in variable rates of drug metabolism. CYP drug-drug interactions can contribute to altered drug effectiveness and safety. STUDY OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine the percentage of emergency department (ED) patients with cytochrome 2C19 (CYP2C19) drug-drug interactions. The secondary objective was to determine the prevalence of CYP2C19 polymorphisms in a US ED population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study in an urban academic ED with 72,000 annual visits. Drug ingestion histories for the 48 hours preceding ED visit were obtained; each drug was coded as CYP2C19 substrate, inhibitor, inducer, or not CYP2C19 dependent. Ten percent of patients were randomized to undergo CYP2C19 genotyping using the Roche Amplichip. RESULTS: A total of 502 patients were included; 61% were female, 65% were white, and median age was 39 years (interquartile range, 22-53). One hundred thirty-one (26.1%) patients had taken at least 1 CYP2C19-dependent home drug. Eighteen (13.7%) patients who were already taking a CYP2C19-dependent drug were given or prescribed a CYP2C19-dependent drug while in the ED. Among the 53 patients genotyped, 52 (98%) were extensive metabolizers and 1 was a poor metabolizer. CONCLUSIONS: In a population of ED patients, more than a quarter had taken a CYP2C19-dependent drug in the preceding 48 hours, but few were given or prescribed another CYP2C19-dependent drug in the ED. On genotyping analysis, CYP2C19 polymorphisms were uncommon in our cohort. We conclude that changing prescribing practice due to CYP2C19 drug-drug interaction or genotype is unlikely to be useful in most US ED populations.

Carbohydrate restriction and lactate transporter inhibition in a mouse xenograft model of human prostate cancer.

UNLABELLED: What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? It is known that both lactate inhibition and carbohydrate restriction inhibit tumour growth. What is unknown is whether the two work synergistically together. This study adds that though the combination of lactate inhibition and carbohydrate restriction did not synergistically slow tumour growth in our model, we confirmed that carbohydrate restriction started after tumour inoculation slowed tumour growth. Moreover, lactate inhibition resulted in changes in the tumour microenvironment that may have implications for future metabolic targeting of prostate cancer growth. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a no-carbohydrate ketogenic diet (NCKD) and lactate transporter inhibition can exert a synergistic effect on delaying prostate tumour growth in a xenograft mouse model of human prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 120 nude athymic male mice (aged 6-8 weeks) were injected s.c. in the flank with 1.0 × 10(5) LAPC-4 prostate cancer cells. • Mice were randomized to one of four treatment groups: Western diet (WD, 35% fat, 16% protein, 49% carbohydrate) and vehicle (Veh) treatment; WD and mono-carboxylate transporter-1 (MCT1) inhibition via α-cyano-4-hydroxycinnamate (CHC) delivered through a mini osmotic pump; NCKD (84% fat, 16% protein, 0% carbohydrate) plus Veh; or NCKD and MCT1 inhibition. • Mice were fed and weighed three times per week and feed was adjusted to maintain similar body weights. • Tumour size was measured twice weekly and the combined effect of treatment was tested via Kruskal-Wallis analysis of all four groups. Independent effects of treatment (NCKD vs WD and CHC vs Veh) on tumour volume were tested using linear regression analysis. • All mice were killed on Day 53 (conclusion of pump ejection), and serum and tumour sections were analysed for various markers. Again, combined and independent effects of treatment were tested using Kruskal-Wallis and linear regression analysis, respectively. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in tumour volumes among the four groups (P= 0.09). • When testing the independent effects of treatment, NCKD was significantly associated with lower tumour volumes at the end of the experiment (P= 0.026), while CHC administration was not (P= 0.981). However, CHC was associated with increased necrotic fraction (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in tumour volumes were observed only in comparisons between mice fed a NCKD and mice fed a WD. • MCT1 inhibition did not have a significant effect on tumour volume, although it was associated with increased necrotic fraction.

Take-Home Naloxone and the Need for a Publicly Funded Naloxone Supply.

The opioid crisis continues to exact a heavy toll on the United States, and overdose deaths have only increased during the current global pandemic. One effective intervention to reduce overdose deaths is to distribute the opioid antagonist naloxone directly to persons actively using opioids (ie, "take-home naloxone"), especially at touchpoints with the potential for significant impact such as emergency departments and jails. A number of hospital emergency departments have recently sought to implement individual take-home naloxone programs; however, programmatic success has been inconsistent due primarily to the inability to secure reliable funding for a naloxone supply. In this commentary, we establish the argument for a publicly funded naloxone supply to support take-home naloxone distribution in emergency department settings. We posit that the complex billing and reimbursement system for medication dispensing is impossibly burdensome during emergency care for an acute opioid overdose, and that the mounting death toll from this public health crisis demands a strong commitment to harm reduction. A publicly financed naloxone supply would demonstrate this commitment and make a measurable impact in saving lives. Ultimately, provision of naloxone should be coupled with other comprehensive treatment services and medications for opioid use disorder to meaningfully reduce harms associated with opioid use.

Disparities by Sex and Race and Ethnicity in Death Rates Due to Opioid Overdose Among Adults 55 Years or Older, 1999 to 2019.

Importance: Rates of opioid overdose deaths are increasing for older adults. Less is known about these deaths compared with those of younger adults. Objective: To analyze rate variation among opioid overdose deaths in older adults by sex and by race and ethnicity over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 21-year longitudinal cross-sectional study of adults who died due to opioid overdose at 55 years or older stratified by sex and by race and ethnicity used data from the Multiple Cause of Death database from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wide-Ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research. The data include all opioid overdose deaths among this age group that occurred between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2019 (N = 79 893). Exposures: Sex and racial and ethnic groups. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of opioid overdose deaths per 100 000 population by sex and by race and ethnicity for persons 55 years or older. Results: During the period 1999 to 2019, 79 893 US residents 55 years or older died due to an opioid overdose. Among these individuals, 79.97% were aged 55 to 64 years, and 58.98% were men. Annual numbers of deaths increased over time from 518 in 1999 to 10 292 in 2019. Annual rates of opioid overdose deaths per 100 000 persons 55 years or older increased over time and ranged from 0.90 in 1999 to 10.70 in 2019. Substantial variation by sex and by race and ethnicity was found. In 2013, rates among non-Hispanic Black men began to diverge from those of other demographic subgroups. By 2019, the opioid overdose fatality rate among non-Hispanic Black men 55 years or older was 40.03 per 100 000 population, 4 times greater than the overall opioid overdose fatality rate of 10.70 per 100 000 for persons of the same age. Conclusions and Relevance: In this longitudinal cross-sectional study of US adults who died due to opioid overdose, the burden of opioid overdose deaths among older adults since 2013 was most concentrated among non-Hispanic Black men. Deaths among non-Hispanic Black men were disproportionality represented in the overall increase in the rate of opioid overdose deaths among older adults. Further research is needed to inform policy and practice.

Antibiotic and antitussive prescribing among urgent care and emergency department visits for respiratory diagnoses in a large health system.

Objective: Urgent care centers (UCs) commonly evaluate patients with respiratory infections, and patients increasingly prefer UCs to emergency departments (EDs) because of their customer-centric approach. The aim of this study is to describe antibiotic and opioid prescribing among UC and ED visits with respiratory diagnoses. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of visits to 7 EDs and 6 UCs in the greater Chicago area. We included visits from July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2019, with a primary diagnosis of upper or lower respiratory infection. We describe the proportion of visits resulting in an antibiotic or antitussive prescription as well as the most frequently prescribed medications in these categories. We also describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of visits. Results: Of 9134 ED visits, 32.9% were prescribed an antibiotic and 14.4% an antitussive (6.6% opioid). Of 41,380 UC visits for respiratory diagnoses, 57.9% were prescribed an antibiotic and 25.0% an antitussive (9.3% opioid). The most frequently prescribed antibiotics among ED and UC visits were penicillins (36.6% and 44.5%, respectively) and macrolides (44.1% and 35.3%, respectively). The most commonly prescribed opioid was codeine (55.6% and 91.0%, respectively). Median waiting room time was 16 and 5 minutes for ED and UC visits, respectively; median length of stay was 178 and 41 minutes, respectively. Conclusions: Antibiotics and antitussives, including opioids, are frequently prescribed for ED and UC visits with non-bacterial respiratory diagnoses. These findings suggest greater attention to the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing in both settings and the incorporation of specific guidance on codeine products in opioid-prescribing guidelines.

Feasibility of Emergency Department-based Fentanyl Test Strip Distribution.

OBJECTIVES: United States drug overdose deaths now overwhelmingly involve fentanyl and fentanyl analogs. The emergency department (ED) is an important setting to provide harm reduction for persons who use drugs, but ED-based fentanyl test strip distribution has not yet been described. METHODS: This is an observational study of patients with an opioid-related visit to an ED in downtown Chicago, Illinois. We offered fentanyl test strips alongside an existing take-home naloxone program and report on the number of patients who accepted fentanyl test strips. We assessed patient familiarity with fentanyl and fentanyl test strips during the index ED visit and attempted to contact patients 1 month after the ED visit to determine testing outcomes. RESULTS: We offered fentanyl test strips to 23 consecutive ED patients (mean age, 39.8 years; male, 73.9%) with an opioid-related ED visit (87.0% for opioid overdose). Sixteen patients (69.5%) had heard of fentanyl, and 2 (8.7%) had prior experience using fentanyl test strips. Eighteen patients (78.2%) accepted the fentanyl test strips, 2 of which left the test strips behind in the ED alongside their take-home naloxone kit. Of the 16 total patients who departed with fentanyl test strips, we were able to reach 3 (18.8%) by phone 1 month after their ED visit; 9 had disconnected or wrong numbers listed. All 3 patients reported a positive fentanyl test strip result; tested substances included heroin, alprazolam, and cocaine. CONCLUSIONS: This report demonstrates the feasibility and acceptability of ED fentanyl test strip distribution among patients with opioid-related ED visits.

Embedded emergency department physical therapy versus usual care for acute low back pain: a protocol for the NEED-PT randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain is a common problem and a substantial source of morbidity and disability worldwide. Patients frequently visit the emergency department (ED) for low back pain, but many experience persistent symptoms at 3 months despite frequent receipt of opioids. Although physical therapy interventions have been demonstrated to improve patient functioning in the outpatient setting, no randomised trial has yet to evaluate physical therapy in the ED setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-centre cluster-randomised trial of an embedded ED physical therapy intervention for acute low back pain. We used a covariate-constrained approach to randomise individual physicians (clusters) at an urban academic ED in Chicago, Illinois, USA, to receive, or not receive, an embedded physical therapist on their primary treatment team to evaluate all patients with low back pain. We will then enrol individual ED patients with acute low back pain and allocate them to the embedded physical therapy or usual care study arms, depending on the randomisation assignment of their treating physician. We will follow patients to a primary endpoint of 3 months and compare a primary outcome of change in PROMIS-Pain Interference score and secondary outcomes of change in modified Oswestry Disability Index score and patient-reported opioid use. Our primary approach will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis, whereby all participants who complete at least one follow-up data time point will be included in analyses, regardless of their or their physicians' adherence to their assigned study arm. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial is funded by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS027426) and was approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board. All physician and patient participants will give written informed consent to study participation. Trial results will be submitted for presentation at scientific meetings and for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04921449).